The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I know there are at least a couple of you out there who have owned both the Sub C and GMT IIC - got any comparative observations on them?

I love my GMT but I'm thinking of flipping it for the Sub. Not a big fan of the polished centre links, and the glidelock on the Sub bracelet is awesome. Seems to me that the Sub might sit just a little bit higher on the wrist too, which does appeal, but it's a very slight difference at most. How have you guys found them? In an ideal world I could have them both, of course...

Not a big fan of the polished centre links, and the glidelock on the Sub bracelet is awesome. Seems to me that the Sub might sit just a little bit higher on the wrist too, which does appeal, but it's a very slight difference at most. How have you guys found them? In an ideal world I could have them both, of course...


All 100% accurate. I prefer the Sub and it's all bushed look. The clasp is by far the best I've ever seen/worn - period.

_________________
SHARKMAN

Agree that the clasp on the Sub C is fantastic. I like the polished center links on my GMT C. The one thing I prefer about the GMT C over the Sub C is the bezel. The GMT C bezel just does it for me...maybe it's the big platinum 24 hour numbers...hard for me to explain it but the bezel sets the GMT C apart for me.

_________________
"I don't own any watches, I just lease them"

subc is awesome. this is coming from one the biggest rolex haters before. like shark and serge stated the glide lock is something to marvel at. personally i like the pcl on the GMT II c as well, but IMO the subc is just a bit cleaner all around, less stuff going on with bezel and dial.

if you like it all you have to do is strap it onto your wrist at the AD and you will probably end up buying it.

They are both quite similar, and both excellent. The Sub has a slightly thicker caseback, which does make it sit a little higher on the wrist. It's not a huge difference, although it might be worth noting that the added thickness is all out the back, meaning the case itself will be raised a little. For me, that was actually a point in favor the the GMT, since I prefer the case to sit as flush to my wrist as possible. But it really wasn't a huge difference either way.

The Glidelock clasp on the Sub is awesome - a fantastic idea that every watchmaker should adopt.

I prefer the look of the bezel on the GMT, with those bold numbers. Functionally, though, the Sub bezel works better for me, since I have little need for a GMT function, but use the time marking ability of a sport bezel on a fairly regular basis. In general, I'd say I prefer the looks of the GMT slightly more than those of the Sub, but find the Sub to look great anyway, while also being more functional for my needs. So for me it would be an easy choice: Sub all the way.

Excellent input as always, thanks guys.

I do admire the GMT, but the clasp, the blue lume, and the smoothest bezel action on the planet tips the scales in favor of the Sub for me.

I must admit I had a little chuckle about the Sub sitting higher on the wrist. It is literally true, but given this is a Breitling forum, it may as well have a flat case back.

_________________
SHARKMAN

True on all counts. Turning that bezel is a sensual experience. And if believing that is wrong, I don't want to be right.

I was also thinking the same thing as you about the height of the Sub - it's practically a wafer compared to almost any Breitling.

I can't comment on the GMT IIc from an owner's perspective but I did try on both before opting for the Submariner Ceramic. Which I absolutely love:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=30636

_________________
Forum Representative for Andrew Michaels Jewellers, UK

Please visit my Watch Blog at http://www.AndrewMichaels.co.uk

******Our new Pre-owned watch site www.amjwatches.co.uk is now live*****

In the interests of full disclosure, I should point out that I don't own either watch. Last fall I was considering purchasing one or the other of them, and looked very closely at them multiple times, which included trying them both on, playing with the clasps, etc. Ultimately, the price point put me off, and I went with the CSO instead. Nothing against the CSO, but I wonder if I should have just bitten the bullet and gone with the Sub. There's no other watch I want more, irrespective of brand, and it's one of those itches that still hasn't been scratched. I foresee myself getting one pretty soon, even if it means selling off some pieces to justify it.

The CSO is a great piece for what it is. And is one of the few lings that is serious bang for the buck. But something about the Subc is just amazing. it truly is that perfect dress/sport watch for any occasion. if you get the chance jackson pull the trigger on it, i can almost guarantee that you will love it. and if you dont....well you will get back what you spent.

Ive been contemplating a GMTIIc or SubC for a while now. Even came really close to putting a FS ad for the pam. Next day I was sitting at the car wash and this guy next to me was wearing a GMT. I asked myself if thats what I wanted...to be the guy who knows nothing about watches, has a Rolex, thinks he's super cool for it (but clearly isnt very cool...well, maybe he is...I dont know the guy )... I still havent let it go, but I just wonder if joining the droves of owners that I see on a daily or weekly basis will get real old, real fast.

_________________
-RJ

But you wouldn't be the guy who knows nothing about watches and buys a Rolex on status alone. You know about watches, and presumably you'd choose whichever watch you wear because you know it's the right watch for your needs and wants. Of course, if one of your wants is not to be lumped together with all the douches wearing the same watch, then maybe a Sub isn't the right choice for you. For me, I like the Sub for what it is; it would be a plus if it wasn't such a popular watch, but in the end, that's not enough to dissuade me from wanting it.

That's exactly the way I felt about owning a Rolex. Then I saw the GMTIIc and Subc. I loved them, but walked away thinking, "I'm not gonna be one of THOSE guys." Later I asked myself, "Do I even know how many of THOSE guys there are or whether THOSE guys really exist in meaningful numbers?" Then I asked, "Why would I not buy an objectively awesome watch I subjectively truly like a lot based on something that lies somewhere between pure illusion and simple pre-conveived notions?" And so I got the Subc and don't regret it.

The reality is we can use the same logic about the cars we drive (might there be a crap load of guys who drive BMWs and MBs who know nothing about cars and think driving one simply makes them look super cool?). Or the golf clubs we use, suits we wear, and on and on. Hell one can even make the same pre-judgment about LV luggage. No wait, all of us here can agree that would be neither illusion or pre-judgment (Archie42).

_________________
SHARKMAN

That's exactly how I feel about Rolex.

I have nothing against the brand itself, to the contrary. I may even admit that they have some very interesting and beautiful pieces.

But, like you've said RJ, I do not want to be just another guy who thinks he's super cool because he's wearing one. And Rolex is one of the "nouveau riche" criteria in my parts. It cries out too loud "Hey, you see, I made it in life".

_________________


- This is Ghost Rider requesting a fly-by. - Negative Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.